Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — On Monday, the Pentagon’s Court of Appeals acknowledged that evidence obtained during the torture of defendants could be considered in determining pretrial issues in the death penalty case in Guantanamo Bay. The judgment by the army judge was abandoned.
“The issue of admissibility of such evidence is either immature or unprepared for judicial review,” said the military committee’s review court, which allows prosecutors to use the evidence obtained in some cases. Through the torture of prisoners, the comprehensive question of whether was ruled in a six-page decision that essentially left another day.
Lawyers have appealed on behalf of Saudi Arabian Abd al-Rahim al-Nasiri, who was accused of killing 17 U.S. sailors in 2000 when al-Qaeda bombed the U.S. Navy destroyer Cole off Yemen. Mr. Nasiri was waterboarded by a psychologist working at the CIA, and his trial was 10 years before the trial, as a court established after the 9/11 terrorist attacks was trying to deal with the legacy of torture. I’ve been absorbed in the procedure. ..
The Pentagon’s Court of Appeals made a decision on Monday, the eve of the first pre-trial hearing since January 2020, after a long-term closure of the court by a coronavirus pandemic. Guantanamo’s military commission is essentially a commuter court, with the exception of prisoners, who participate in the proceedings by charter flights from the Washington, DC region.
The issue in the appeal was the prosecutor’s decision to include in confidential documents what Mr. Nasiri had told the CIA’s interrogators during a particularly brutal cross-examination in 2002. His lawyer was seeking information about the 2015 drone strike in Syria. They killed another Kaida figure, Mosen al-Fadri, when investigating the theory that the United States had already killed older and more responsible prosecutors of the Cole attack. The prosecutor asked the judge to end the investigation and pointed to a confidential cable that said Nasiri had told CIA agents that Fadli was not involved when he was being cross-examined in a secret prison in Afghanistan.
Defendant lawyers said prosecutors in military commission trials were prohibited from submitting evidence from torture and urged judges to refuse. Judge Colonel Ranny J. Acosta Jr. did not dismiss the evidence, and the jury could not see that kind of evidence, but the prosecutor called for such information and the judge Instead, he decided that it could be used in a very narrow range on the judge’s issue. Jury domain.
The ruling caused controversy. David Luban, a law professor at Georgetown University, said he was in trouble because “evidence of torture sneaks through the back door.” Mr Nasiri’s lawyer accused military judges of being “morally blind.”
The ruling also drew the attention of a Biden administration lawyer who was dissatisfied with the decision of Brig, a longtime war crimes prosecutor. Army General Mark S. Martins quotes a statement obtained through torture. Controversy over tactics that appeared in the general’s unexpected decision to retire from the Army 15 months early. He will retire on September 30th.
After he sought retirement, General Martins recorded information from the CIA prison while retaining a comprehensive decision on Colonel Acosta that the judge had the authority to evaluate the information gathered from the torture. I requested that it be wiped out. Colonel Acosta did just that.
In a decision on Monday that overturned Colonel Acosta’s ruling, the Military Commission’s review committee said, “The withdrawal of the disputed language makes the matter controversial.”
Mr Nasiri’s defense lawyer said he was disappointed that the panel couldn’t go any further and banned the use of evidence obtained from torture in pretrial proceedings. They found a broader decision that Colonel Acosta’s reasoning was flawed, and a submission made between the prosecution and the judge to determine if other such evidence had permeated the case. I was asking for an order to consider.
Nasiri’s military lawyer, Captain Brian L. Mizer of the Navy, said on Monday that his team was considering appealing to a private court, the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.